Sunday, January 01, 2006

Hitting paparazzi in the wallet

New California law focuses on overly aggressive photographers

Paparazzi are going to have to think twice about chasing down celebrities anywhere in California. A new state law went into effect Jan. 1 that increases penalties against overly aggressive photographers — dubbed "stalkerazzi" — who forcefully thrust their cameras into famous faces or crash their car into a celebrity's vehicle.

These brazen photographers can now be held liable for three times the damages they inflict, plus lose any payments their published photos might earn. Publishers can also be held liable. More from MSNBC.

Tags: , ,


Cecilia said...

This must be a relief for the stars. They can then truly let their hair down in their OWN homes without having to worry about lurkers!

We normal earthlings already feel conscious enough, having to draw our curtains or to pull up our shades for privacy from neighbors...but still get to enjoy anonymity when outside.

I guess it should be a matter of respect among the paparazzi to shoot the stars with permission, though of course the spontaneity (stolen shots) will be lost.

Is it obvious that I am a follower of these magazines? :-)

AsianSmiles said...

In the Philippine Islands (PI), we also don't enjoy the sight of photographers getting into situations that are too dangerous or ridiculous for them. The military coup last 2003 in Makati City was a nightmare - not for the civilians but for the press people who crawled and ran and hid from one place to another.

Actors and politicians have their share of "harassment" so they complain in public if it becomes too bothersome. Presidents have issued press limits (photo shoots when they are eating and the likes).

If and when the photogs damage some properties or cause harm, they get slammed with court cases and/or bans.

I guess one might say that the economy of the press industry in PI is a lot different compared to the US - but when properties are already damaged, the cliche "bad publicity is still publicity" is preposterous already. Press people aren't the only ones who should be warned, celebs and politicians should set their own limits too.

One q Sis: I've always wondered about cameramen who are faced by life and death situations - like if they are witnessing a person who needs immediate medical help - I did saw some footages in the past - I asked myself, "why aren't they doing something to save the man? why do they choose to take video clips instead of giving immediate aid?"

Is there some kind of ethical standards for the press which apply to these kinds of situations?


Great topic, as usual Sis!